Beyond the Happy Consensus about Democratic Elitism

No metrics data to plot.

The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.

The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.

The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on
BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an
institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform
automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the
Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a
favorably uniform low price.

A growing number of studies assign elites and leaders a larger role than democratic elitism assumes. Democratic elitism is not a coherent theory because it papers over three quite distinct models of political representation and democratic control: Robert Dahl's mandate model; the accountability model associated chiefly with John Plamenatz; and the authorization model set forth by Adam Przeworski and colleagues. This last model, wherein elites and leaders conceptualize and present voters' choices, best captures elite-voter relations in today's democracies. This authorization model is decidedly pessimistic about controlling elites and leaders in a democracy, but it is nonetheless compatible with a skeptical reading of Schumpeter.